I agree - the interventionist policy of the Bush administration was insane. Two failed military adventures which cost thousands of lives and have left a huge dent in the budget. But is Obama any better?? It appears that in his trip to Israel next week, he intends to join them (or support them) in an invasion of Iran. It does not matter who the President is - as Middle East foreign policy is made in Tel Aviv!!!!

Will the Great Game for Central Asia end for its people especially when 2 interfering Hegemon were kicked out of their supposedly backyards to civilise its unkempt inhabitants. In fact, one Hegemon had imploded because of this war, while the other is still locked in financial morass - licking up its huge debt to finance the expensive Wars between Civilizations.

"As NATO pulls out of Afghanistan it might leave Central Asia in a Mess" Correct sub title should have been "it leaves Central Asia in a Mess". Being son of the soil I will never blame NATO rather will blame the masses of the area who elect or select stupid leaders to rule them. The game is going on for decades and no light at the end of the tunnel. NATO countries have to keep their economy on wheels so they require testing grounds. Unfortunate are Central Asians who are unable to understand all this. Better option seems to be to hand over whole central Asia either to USA or to some other powerful country. At least masses will have peace as well friction of development in daily life. So was the case when Great Britain was ruling the sub continent.

Central Asia has been a mess since Alexander wrecked it back in 5th century BC. The successive invaders didn't do the region much favor. The Turks replaced urban sophistication with nomadic life style. The Muslims substituted medication with repression. The Soviets wrecked what little culture that still remained with alcoholism.

One of the main source of income to the region before Russian conquest was slavery. That's right, slavery all the way up to 19th century.

One of the greatest man to have came out of the region was Timur the Lame. A guy who is most famous for killing entire cities and building pyramids out of the human skulls.

It took the United States some seven months of hard bargaining with Islamabad to get Pakistan to reopen its border with Afghanistan to NATO supply vehicles. Prior to the border closing in 2011, about 5,000 trucks a month had ploughed their way from the Pakistani port city of Karachi, through dusty Baluchistan (avoiding the Taliban-infested units of the Khyber Pass), and on to Baghram, Kandahar, and other logistical hubs in Afghanistan. That route came to a halt in November 2011, after an American air raid mistakenly killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and Islamabad retaliated by suspending movements of NATO trucks along this route.

Islamabad said it would reopen the border only once the United States had both apologised and agreed to pay much higher transport and transiting fees for NATO vehicles traversing its territory. Later, Islamabad eventually dropped the fee demand but did secure an apology from the then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

Following the shutdown of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border in November (2011), NATO re-oriented its supply routes to northern Afghanistan through a series of roads in Central Asia, which make up what is known as the ‘Northern Distribution Network’ (NDN). The seven-month dependence on the northern transportation routes – which are circuitous and hazardous – cost the US hundreds of millions of dollars and much political heartache. But, far from being a thing of the past, the difficulties associated with the NDN remain. The reopening of the border with Pakistan will certainly help, though the NDN will remain crucial as NATO starts to ship home troops and equipment it will not be prepared to leave behind.

As Banyan points out in this detailed article ‘The New Silk Road’ offers NATO and the United States a logistical alternative. Shipping along the Trans-Siberian Railway is an alternative to costly air freight and slow container ships, offering speedy transit of goods from China’s industrial hubs to European markets. The alternate route goes through Kazakhstan.

With all your experience and success in Democracy, Responsible Governance, Nation Building, and Warfare I am shocked and dismayed that the USA has not been able to make Afghanistan a model for all of the above characteristics that the USA has in spades.

I would like to appeal to y'all in the USA to stay the course, so that you may duplicate the single-handed successes that you have had in Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Grenada, and Iraq. The world--nay, the Universe--needs your wisdom and leadership. Thank you, and dog bless 'merica.

rep3, you're not right. take the word "algorithm" and think a bit how it came out. you may use wikipedia (for your small brain) and see that this magic word is just westernized way of pronouncing "Al-Khorezmi". Khoresm is an ancient city located in Uzbekistan.

But you are right that yankees must go home. however it will not happen.

Referring to your final paragraph, speed is not so much an issue. Container ships are wonderful and preferred because of the sheer amount of bulk they can carry. The mind-boggling volume and weight of the material, vehicles, and ordinance has to be shipped out of landlocked Afghanistan somehow. Train is slow, but it takes a hell'ova lot of trains to transport that much material, not to mention even slower trucks. The Pakistani route is preferred because of that port. Otherwise it's 4,000 km of rail and road to the north and West, finally ending (if my memory serves) in Germany. The US Navy combined with some leased commercial ships has more than enough tonnage to get the army out of the country if they can get to a port. Troops are easy to fly out, and don't pose any particular problems. Its the tanks, APCs, ammo, spare parts, and general war material that is going to be a logistical nightmare.

Back when an AK-47 didn't cost a measly sum or when anyone can design a home-made bomb based off designs on the internet using everyday chemicals, fertilizer and some diesel? Oh yes, Great Britain had it good, only the terrain and it's own colonial troops to worry about. Such is not the case anymore or ever will be again. The region can't simply be garrisoned forever by foreign troops and bags of money can only do so much in such a corrupt corner of the world.

All these seven STANS if left to themselves for seven years will reduce themselves to a single entity, that can be named as GHOULISTAN, the place for the ghosts.On one side are those sickular dictators and on another side are Jihadi killers of the innocents.People will have to give up Islam,Sickularism of Soviet variety and return to their 2000 years old nomadic [and idyllic] past for peace.

Sooner or later with a nod from Nato-Washington, the Wahabbists from Turkey to the Gulf Saudi/Qatar will try to finance and arm the Islamic terrorists to overthrow the so-called secular Dictators like fella Bashir, Mubarak etc. sitting on the wrong side of History by bringing in Shariah laws with a toxic dose of liberal democracy.

I still remember "in 2004, a few weeks after Chechen extremists took hostages in a North Ossetian school, what was Vladislav Surkov telling us . He was then the deputy chief of the presidential administration and is now deputy prime minister -- he then laid out a vision of Russia as a besieged fortress.
According to Surkov, anonymous foreign malfeasants, hungry for the country's natural resources, were plotting to "destroy Russia and fill its enormous space with many weak quasi-states."
These " many weak quasi-states" he had in mind included Russian Federation herself. It is exactly what Putin and his political allies have succeeded to make in less than 13 years time.
Furthermore, he added that in the "de-facto besieged country," outside plotters were helped by "the fifth column" of traitors, the "left and right radicals," who have "common foreign sponsors," and that these traitors are united by "the hatred of what they claim to be Putin's Russia but, in fact, [is the hatred] of Russia herself."
To remind me that - nine years after makes me to laugh because this type of "besieged" mentality is the best way that we could use to destroy this Russian Chauvinist Ideology. To use it as a poison.
Since then, Surkov's three themes -- the never-ceasing attempts to subjugate or destroy the Russian state, the anti-regime opposition as tools of those behind the plotting, and equating the present government with the Russian nation -- have become the staples of the regime's propaganda.
And our best tool against them. A way to isolate them because all the countries surrounding them and first of all China will never accept any type of predominance from Russians that they consider as being inferiors to them.
As one might expect, the besieged fortress theme is given most visibility and intensity when the regime's need for bolstering its legitimacy appears to be the greatest.
And the threat of the West - and of course first United States is a common focus.
It is such a joke when you know that this Russia is becoming a part if China and they could do nothing about.
Second in an appropriated time we will squeeze the assets of all Russians in the West and in the same time block them to visit "us". We need to tell them that China and China only will the place where they could go - for re-education.

"Much in Russian foreign policy today is based on a consensus that crystallized in the early 1990s. Emerging from the rubble of the Soviet collapse, this consensus ranges across the political spectrum -- from pro-Western liberals to leftists and nationalists. It rests on three geostrategic imperatives: that Russia must remain a nuclear superpower, a great power in all facets of international activity, and the hegemon -- the political, military, and economic leader -- of its region. This consensus marks a line in the sand, beyond which Russia cannot retreat without losing its sense of pride or even national identity. "

On these geostrategic imperatives, Russian Federation because of Putin is losing all:

1-nuclear superpower means less and less because simply when you have more and more countries which gets nuclear missiles plus a complex development of cyberwar and spacewar - Russian nuclear deterrence becomes each day more relative and the countries capable of a surprise attack is growing in countries which could become first and for all hostile to Russia: Islamist countries ( Pakistan, Iran, etc ) and Asian countries ( China )

2-Russian is a regional power but not a great power as China, India and Brazil are becoming. Her influence on the countries surrounding herself is less and less important: none in Baltic States and Poland, almost none in Georgia compare to UE and USA and Turkey , little in Ukraine compare to EU, less and less in Kazakstan, Turkmenistan where China is by far the main leader, and of course none on Iran, Turkey, China etc

3-hegemon - Russian hegemony today in the World is zero: her culture in all areas and at each level is nothing strategically important. None in the West, none in Asia: none in China, in India; none in South America, none in Africa. It is easy to prove it : where the Russian movies are present or Russian literature or Russian Social and Economic researches or even "hard" Sciences ?

Central Asian countries as the Russian Federation Far East are today step by step totally under the strategic economic dependence of China - which means also step by step culturally.

It is completely insane that the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan. This war served no purpose except to loot the taxpayer's money. The invasion will now destabilize this region in the long term. What is the use of invading a country the other side of the planet, when Russia, who is next door could not in the 1980s. This area will end up being an area of fanatical militant breeding. When looking for the reason why things go wrong never rule out stupidity.